Phase Coherence or Time Alignment: Which More Imp?

Thanks to you both. Let me see if I understand this correctly. Phase irregularities caused by steep slope crossovers can be compounded by an alignment of the drivers which further distorts the arrival of sound waves at your ear. What I am wondering is which tends to have a greater impact on phase coherence--a steep slope crossover which delays the sound eminating from certain drivers or a poorly conceived alignment of the drivers? Let's take the new Fried Studio 7 for example (photos are on the website). It has a flat baffle with the tweeter flanked on top and bottom by a 6" midrange (top) and an 8" woofer (below). Is this a time aligned (or as Richard Hardesty would say "temporally aligned") arrangement? If so, great. If not, how much of an impact does this have on phase coherence? In other words, if the drivers are not temporally aligned then are the supposed benefits of 1st order crossovers lost due to improper driver alignment? Or is the phase coherent crossover 90% of the battle and the lack of temporal alignment only a small piece of the sonic picture?
Also, can we really hear these phase irregularities or what? Some say we can and others say impossible. All I know is that the phase coherent designs I've heard sound more like live music than designs using steep slope crossovers. I was at the NY Hi End Show last weekend and it was very interesting for me, after reading through the dispute between the "steep slopers" and the "first order crowd" in the previous thread, to walk back and forth between the Joseph Audio room (a steep sloper) and the Vandersteen Room (a first orderer). They were right next door to each other so I could drift back and forth. The rooms were identical. Both used (different) but high quality upstream components. Here is what I observed. The Joseph Audio room sounded like hifi and the Vandersteen room sounded like music. I could point out other specific differences that I heard but this pretty much captures the essence of my experience. I'm not prepared to say the this essential difference was due purely to the crossover designs of the two speakers but it may have SOMETHING to do with what I heard.

Jeff, I totally accept your position. Having initiated the thread on crossover design (on which you were a gracious participant) I just thought it interesting to go back and forth between the rooms and listen to the two top models of reputable brands' that approach the crossover differently. I realize that other factors contributed to the differences I heard. I'm just wondering to what degree those differences are attributable to the diametrically opposed crossover designs. One thing I did notice was that the Joseph Audio Pearls seemed to image with greater precision than the Vandersteen 5A's. Localization of individual instruments was much easier. The images on the Vandy's seemed to float around. They weren't anchored in position as they would be live. On the other hand, the soundstage depth and width of the Vandy's was, to my ear, far superior to the Pearls. I wonder if others have had similar experience listening to either of these models and whether, again, the crossover design is in part to blame.

I have to agree with Zkzpb8. Overall I thought the sound at the show was pretty bad. I can only think of one or two rooms where I was really enjoying what was going on and the Vandy room by Audio Connection was, IMHO, clearly the best. Most of what I heard elsewhere was crappy audiophile stuff--you know, "great" recordings of bad music and sound effects. Far too many "demonstrations" and far too few folks who actually seemed to like music. In the Audio Connection suite they played all kind of stuff and, to my ear, it all sounded great. It's funny, I've been looking and listening to speakers for about a year now and have boiled my search down to 4 models--three of which are phase coherent designs. I may be one of those who is also sensitive to phase and time relationships. I donno.